If Drich has an education in science then he has no excuse for this bull shit. None. Any university that would grant a bachelor of science to someone who made a statement like those he has put up here has done that person a gross disservice. I forgive the know-nothing's who spout this. They have no education in this. But to someone who has the education I have nothing but contempt.
Any science teacher will tell their students that nothing is taken on faith. Everything must be tested and retested. Everything must be corroborated by experimentation and observation. To push this home the physics class I took had us derive all the constants we used in lecture through experimentation. We had to demonstrate the laws of motion, energy, and other phenomena through work in the lab.
Then the claim that all work in science is based in faith. That we can't be sure. I work in research. Among one of the jobs we have is to test in the structures lab the bridges and roads to see if they are sound. We are given samples of the road and bridge material. Our job is to determine of the material is so deteriorated that it is unsafe for public use. If we say the material is too damaged, then the bridge is deemed unsafe. If it passes our tests, then we say the bridge is safe. Do you think that the departments of transportations that send us these samples take our word on faith? Or do they do so because of the repeated reliability of our results? (My professor once took a sledgehammer to a concrete pillar when someone doubted it wasn't safe. Hint: concrete isn't supposed to break that easy.)
Any science teacher will tell their students that nothing is taken on faith. Everything must be tested and retested. Everything must be corroborated by experimentation and observation. To push this home the physics class I took had us derive all the constants we used in lecture through experimentation. We had to demonstrate the laws of motion, energy, and other phenomena through work in the lab.
Then the claim that all work in science is based in faith. That we can't be sure. I work in research. Among one of the jobs we have is to test in the structures lab the bridges and roads to see if they are sound. We are given samples of the road and bridge material. Our job is to determine of the material is so deteriorated that it is unsafe for public use. If we say the material is too damaged, then the bridge is deemed unsafe. If it passes our tests, then we say the bridge is safe. Do you think that the departments of transportations that send us these samples take our word on faith? Or do they do so because of the repeated reliability of our results? (My professor once took a sledgehammer to a concrete pillar when someone doubted it wasn't safe. Hint: concrete isn't supposed to break that easy.)
